How else in a time of such economic challenge can we reduce crime and antisocial behaviour, especially domestic violence and child abuse – both so strongly linked to alcohol. Other important problems such as teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections are more likely with inebriation, and alcohol is undoubtedly the number one date-rape drug.

The costs to our economy of productivity lost at work, together with the criminal justice and health bill, put the financial drain as high as £55bn. There is no such thing as a cheap drink; we are all paying a very heavy price.

Our constituents' lives are being made a misery by the impact of drunkenness. Last week I received a letter from a woman who tried to intervene when a lout was urinating on a vulnerable woman lying in the street. She has since been subjected to a campaign of intimidation and antisocial behaviour. People have had enough of binge drinkers and expect us to take action, not just a "nudge", more an almighty shove. The recent fall in alcohol consumption mirrors the relative change in alcohol affordability during the recession. But the fall has not been enough to change the cost to the UK economy of problem drinking because it has not affected ultra-cheap sales. Ultra-cheap sales are widely used to preload by underage and young drinkers. Deep discounting and use of alcohol as a loss leader will undermine any duty increase unless a floor price is set. Minimum pricing is the only way to end the disastrous consequences of ultra-cheap alcohol.

Fewer young people are drinking, but those who do are drinking more heavily. Consumption has nearly doubled in girls aged 11-13 who have a preference for vodka mixers. They are exposed more than ever to alcohol marketing as a result of the rise in internet advertising via social media and covert marketing through sponsorship of youth events and promotion by branded goods.

Minimum pricing does not make alcohol unaffordable. It does, however, prevent the supermarkets offering it as a loss leader, or offering heavy discounts on bulk purchases. Scotland is about to bring in a minimum price of 45p a unit, which would make the price of a nine-unit bottle of wine £4.09. As one of my correspondents put it, if you can't afford 45p a unit it is a sign that you are drinking too much.

Scotland has an even more serious issue with binge drinking than England, and has a compelling health case for action. It is a disgrace that the country's efforts will be undermined by retailers already threatening to deliver low-cost internet orders from bases outside Scotland. Rather than allowing this we should be co-ordinating efforts with the Scottish parliament and, if anything, raising the minimum price to 50p per unit as this would have a greater impact.

The point is that minimum pricing does not make most alcohol any more expensive and would have no impact whatever on pub prices. It would protect the licensed trade by levelling the playing field with the supermarkets.

To those who feel that minimum pricing would just hand greater profits to the drinks industry, there are many suggestions: varying VAT between on- and off-licensed premises to offset a rise in duty without penalising pubs or clubs, or a levy on unopened bottles of between 5p and 10p per unit. Bearing in mind that in excess of 30bn units are sold off-licence every year, such a levy would raise more than enough to fund treatment programmes for dependent drinkers who struggle to find the right help. Alternatively, if we can apply windfall profits to oil companies, why not to the drinks industry, or others profiting from minimum pricing?

Of all the costs however, the human ones are incalculably the highest. I have sat with jaundiced and deserted alcoholics and witnessed the horrific consequences of alcoholic liver disease such as catastrophic bleeding from oesophageal varices. I have seen the devastating impact on women targeted by serial rapists and those violently assaulted as a result of low-cost World Cup-type alcohol promotions. Saddest of all, the child carers whose lives are blighted by parents with a problem that we choose to sweep under the carpet.

The alcohol strategy is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change Britain for the better. If we waste it with ineffective "industry partnerships" and voluntary codes we should not delude ourselves that local public health initiatives can have any effect. Strong central action on pricing is essential, combined with the ability to introduce locally relevant measures on availability and treatment.

An alcohol strategy that would work should include the following: minimum pricing of 50p a unit, which has a strong evidence base and would particularly target young drinkers and heavy drinkers. It would save an estimated 3,393 lives a year and reduce the cost of alcohol-related problems by £9.7bn over a decade.

There must be greater powers for local authorities to set the density and location of licensed premises and to revise licensing conditions where there are problems with antisocial behaviour. Current regulations do not protect children sufficiently, and public education should not be in the hands of the drinks industry. My private member's bill is based on the Loi Evin, in France, which has very effectively tackled children's exposure to alcohol marketing.

Sobriety testing has been effective in some settings in the United States. The public are massively inconvenienced by drunks and would be happy to see them inconvenienced in return. We should immediately pilot twice-daily compulsory breath testing for those who commit a public order offence while drunk, or who drive over the legal limit, to see if it is effective in Britain. Likewise, there is a case for lowering the drink driving limit to 50mg from the present level of 80mg/100ml, although a limit of 20mg would be too draconian and could penalise rural pubs.

There is nothing particularly responsible about our "new responsibility deal". Of course it is good to have the drinks industry's co-operation but we should be setting the standards, rather than them. In three years we will be judged as a government on key markers of social cohesion, crime and the nation's health. We should act quickly and decisively, because we can make a real difference.